Should you stop using DEI “trigger” words in grant proposals?

How to adapt and resist.

Mar 17, 2025

As grant writing professionals committed to advancing social justice, we are currently navigating a challenging landscape. The Trump administration has initiated a series of actions aimed at dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. These measures have significant implications for how we approach DEI language in our grant proposals.

Embracing Diversity and Inclusion in Entrepreneurship - RAISE fosters startup growth and scale-up within and across Europe

Understanding the Current Landscape

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled "Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing," which mandates the termination of all DEI-related initiatives within the federal government. This order requires federal agencies to eliminate any mandates, policies, programs, or activities related to DEI and to report all employees involved in DEI and "environmental justice" positions to the Office of Management and Budget within 60 days.

The next day, Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," was issued. This order prohibits private organizations from implementing DEI employment programs for jobs created by federal contracts and revokes key provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity order signed in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

As a result of these executive orders, major funding sources have already begun retracting DEI-related grants and programs:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the cancellation of 400 DEI and environmental justice grants, totaling **$1.7 billion (March 10). As of March 12,** The EPA announced the cancellation of $20 billion worth of climate and clean energy grant programs that had been suspended, prompting legal challenges from affected nonprofit organizations.
The Department of Education has issued ultimatums to universities and schools, warning that DEI initiatives must be dismantled or risk loss of federal funding.
Other federal agencies, including the Department of Labor and the National Institutes of Health, are reviewing their DEI-related grant programs for termination. Just last week the NIH terminated millions of dollars in research grants, in defiance of federal court orders.

This is not just a bureaucratic shift—it is a deliberate effort to erase decades of progress in ensuring equitable access to funding and resources for marginalized communities.

The Case for DEI Language in Grants

As grant writers, we are responsible for securing funding essential to the basic operations of the organizations we work for. But our responsibility to ensure financial stability and sustainability should never supersede the why behind that responsibility—our cause, our belief that everyone deserves basic human rights, that everyone deserves equal opportunity and treatment, that to bring this vision into fruition we must actively address systemic inequities.

Therefore, we, as grant writers, have a moral responsibility not to erase the language that accurately describes the world in which we live, the history that created this world, and the actions that need to be taken to address the problems of this world.

As grant writers, it’s also imperative that we understand and advocate for accurate language, especially when it comes to describing the experiences of the most oppressed in our society. Feminist rhetorician Cheris Kramarae explains why having and using accurate and descriptive language for our everyday lived experience is key to affirming the reality of that lived experience:

First, having an “established” word means that there is no need for a personal narrative to explain the concept to others. Second, having a word legitimizes the concept. Third, having a shared word helps establish a bond, a link for others with whom the concept is meaningful. (”Proprietors of Language” Readings in Feminist Rhetorical Theory 12)

Continuing to use “DEI language” represents a commitment to fairness, accessibility, and addressing systemic inequities. Removing them does not make inequities disappear—it only makes them harder to acknowledge and address.

Maintaining DEI language in proposals is also rhetorically effective in the more classical sense, as they:

✔ Enhance Clarity – Clearly articulating the need for equity provides context for your project, making it more relatable and urgent.

✔ Demonstrate Impact – Funders want to see how their investment will lead to greater societal good, which is effectively communicated through DEI language.

✔ Align with Mission – For organizations whose mission includes advancing social justice, DEI language is integral to their identity and goals.

What If My Board or Boss Insists I Remove DEI Language?

Many grant professionals are facing internal pressure from boards, executive directors, or leadership teams to preemptively remove DEI language, even when funders haven’t explicitly demanded it. Some leaders fear political backlash or believe they must comply with federal hostility toward DEI to maintain funding.

If you’re facing this situation, here’s what you can do:

Ask for Evidence: If leadership insists that DEI language must be removed, ask them to show written documentation from funders requiring this. Many times, there is no actual directive—only fear-based assumptions.
Present the Risks: Explain that removing DEI language may actually weaken the proposal by making it less aligned with the mission and impact goals that funders value.
Use Data to Show Funders Still Support Equity: While federal funding is shifting, many private, corporate, and foundation funders continue to prioritize DEI. Use funder award data and current funder priority descriptions to show your board that removing equity language could hurt competitiveness for these grants.
Frame DEI as a Strategy, Not Just a Value: Some leadership may see DEI as an ideological stance rather than a proven method for improving grant impact. Explain how DEI strengthens program effectiveness, expands outreach, and improves long-term outcomes.

The Danger of Obeying in Advance

Historian Timothy Snyder, in On Tyranny, warns against "anticipatory obedience"—the act of self-censoring before a rule or law forces you to do so. He argues that this behavior accelerates authoritarian control, as people internalize restrictions that haven’t even been enforced yet.

We are already seeing this in the grant world. Some professionals are removing DEI language from proposals even when funders have not explicitly prohibited it. This is a dangerous pattern:

🚨 It normalizes censorship. By preemptively erasing DEI, we create an environment where equity work is seen as inappropriate or unnecessary, even when it remains relevant and fundable.

🚨 It gives up power before it’s taken. If we voluntarily remove DEI, we send a message that this work is expendable—when in reality, many private and non-federal funders still prioritize equity-focused initiatives.

🚨 It erodes advocacy. Grant professionals have always played a crucial role in advocating for underserved communities. If we self-censor, we silence the very voices we aim to uplift.

We must resist the urge to "obey in advance." The federal government is not (yet) banning the use of DEI language in all funding applications. By keeping it in our proposals where it aligns with the project goals, we push back against the erasure of equity and inclusion.

Strategies to Adapt and Resist

Rather than erasing DEI language, consider strategic adaptation:

🔹 Know Your Funder: Research whether DEI language is still accepted by the specific agency or foundation. Many private foundations, corporate funders, and even some federal agencies continue to value diversity-focused initiatives.

🔹 Frame DEI as a Core Impact Strategy: Instead of using "equity" as a standalone term, embed it in program outcomes, workforce development, and economic mobility metrics.

🔹 Use Data to Support Equity Goals: Even if you avoid DEI buzzwords, include statistics on disparities that justify funding needs.

🔹 Engage in Collective Advocacy: Join organizations like the National Council of Nonprofits, the Grant Professionals Association, and regional grant professionals’ associations to advocate for continued DEI funding.

🔹 Push Back When Possible: If a funder asks you to remove DEI language, request written clarification and explore ways to maintain the intent of equity while adjusting the wording.

🔹 Publish position statements on your website and send them to funders. Demand that they maintain their support for DEI work and show the impact their funding has had on your organization and those that they serve. Be loud about it!

Conclusion: Hold the Line

The erasure of DEI in grant funding is not just a policy shift—it is part of a broader, authoritarian effort to suppress social justice work. If we comply without resistance, we accelerate this erasure.

💡 Our role as grant professionals is not just to follow trends and policy, but to shape them. We must continue to advocate for communities that need us the most—whether through the language we use, the funders we choose to engage with, or the resistance we mount against unjust policies.

💪 Keep writing, keep fighting, and don’t obey in advance. We’re seeing effective resistance across many sectors, from individual federal government workers, to workers unions, to corporations, and it is working.

It will take all of us to stop this dictatorship. Keep going.